RAJNI DUBEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the advertisement No. 177/47/ Recruitment/ Peon/Date/Meerut dated 20.2.2002 issued by Deputy Excise Commissioner, Meerut Region, Meerut, notifying 12 vacancies of chaprasi/ chowkidar on the ground that in the aforesaid advertisement 20% reservation admissible for women pursuant to the Government order No. 18/1/99/Ka-2/99 dated 26.2.1999 (hereinafter referred to as "G.O. dated 26.2.1999") has not been applied and therefore, the aforesaid recruitment is illegal. THE petitioner has further sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to make recruitment and appointment on the aforesaid post of chaprasi/chowkidar by providing reservation for women as admissible in law.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no exception providing in the G.O. dated 26.2.1999, enabling the respondents to exclude any public post or service from applying women reservation and therefore, non-providing the said is illegal and arbitrary and violative of G.O. dated 26.2.1999 read with Article 15 (3) of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the G.O. dated 26.2.1999 amounts to legislation making special provisions for women referable to Article 15 (3) of the Constitution of India and therefore, cannot be ignored in recruitment by the respondents unless by suitable legislation such power is conferred upon the respondents. Since, there is no such exception or relaxation provided in the G.O. dated 26.2.1999, the respondents have no authority or power or jurisdiction to decide on their own as to whether a particular post or service should be reserved for women candidates or not and therefore, the advertisement published by the respondents by not providing 20% reservation for women is illegal.